Dude... you're not understanding what I'm saying.Only ONE world would be open at a time. When you go through a Travel Portal, it links that portal to a new world, which is stored in a separate save file. Everyone in your game must gather in the portal to travel to the new world AT THE SAME TIME. The game would then go into a quick Travel Loading Screen while the other side of the portal is generated (literal seconds), then everyone would appear in the new world, at the linked portal.Both worlds are saved.The saves are separate but linked.Only one world is open at a time.Problem solved.
There is a moment in time when the link has to transfer between the two files... a split second where the system has to know its opening a new file and closing an old one while transferring certain pieces of data (i.e. players and their inventories) from the one into the other. It's not a cut and dried thing that on a PC occurs in the background. If the XBox can't unload old chunks and upload new ones in order to implement the "rolling" infinite world the PC uses now and stay within it's processing and RAM limitation, how will it be able to unload an entire old world and upload a new one seamingly seamlessly without going into the same sort of overload? You can't prove to me that within the confines the XBox OS and how it handles foreground and background processes that this idea will actually use LESS processing and RAM than the current PC system. You're assuming it takes enough less processing power to make it fly... but do you know it for sure that would be the case on the XBox itself in reality? In addition, leaving the old file would involve saving that file..Just take a look at how long a file save takes now... and tell me that it would use less RAM to do that same function in the background while running a portal graphic to transfer a bunch of players instantly over into a new file with their current inventories intact. Then you have an issue of exiting the game in the second file and perhaps not remembering when you go to play again what file you were in and left from. So, now you re-enter the first file; but with what inventory.. the one you left that world with or the one you accumulated while you were in the second file?IF it doesn't solve the problem that is limiting us from getting infinite worlds, it's kind of pointless to keep endlessly discussing the finite details (like portal ambiance) thread after thread after thread here. As someone said, 4J have looked at this sort of option already and have said that it is also not possible to implement it and keep the game within the operating limitations of the XBox. When the next console comes out and the processing power is increased and IF this game gets upgraded to that console, THEN you will probably get the PC-like infinite world. Until then, just closing down an old world and starting a new one is not an insurmountable issue... it is an inconvenience... but still not a catastrophe.
You all might want to view the 4J interview they had at Minecon. Lots of good info there, and will answer a lot of people's questions.
At 11:20 into the interview Burns explains why the "linked" worlds won't work (any ideas you can come up with involving linking worlds/maps). Before that he also confirmed that there's not like there's any "spare" memory they can use for expanding worlds, etc.- they're already "using all of it".
The two main things from the interview is:
1- The xbox version and PC version are, and always will be, different- on purpose.
2- 4J already knows about what we want. We might get some of that stuff…. or some of it might just not be possible on the xbox. They know, and they'll do what they can. On the other hand, we may get some cool goodies that hasn't even dawned on us yet (because we're so obsessed with trying to copy the PC version).
Why does everyone argue over the world size, and whether it's possible to expand them, make them bigger, link worlds etc etc etc. . .
Someone show me your world where you have covered your entire map, or explored/excavated all 48 million plus blocks in your world, lit up the whole overworld and Nether.
I've not seen one xbox player yet, who has 'explored' thier entire map. So you find all the mineshafts/strongholds/Netherforts etc, but have you found all the caves, all 48million plus blocks, all 16,000 plus diamonds?
Bigger maps are not possible, and in all fairness, not needed on the 360.
Some people say, I want bigger maps! Have 4J thought of this?! Why wont they sort it! . . . . . but give me a genuine reason WHY you need a bigger map. . . then I'll apologise for snapping.
Why does everyone argue over the world size, and whether it's possible to expand them, make them bigger, link worlds etc etc etc. . .
Someone show me your world where you have covered your entire map, or explored/excavated all 48 million plus blocks in your world, lit up the whole overworld and Nether.
I've not seen one xbox player yet, who has 'explored' thier entire map. So you find all the mineshafts/strongholds/Netherforts etc, but have you found all the caves, all 48million plus blocks, all 16,000 plus diamonds?
Bigger maps are not possible, and in all fairness, not needed on the 360.
Some people say, I want bigger maps! Have 4J thought of this?! Why wont they sort it! . . . . . but give me a genuine reason WHY you need a bigger map. . . then I'll apologise for snapping.
Well no but what about maps where the entire overworld has been built on already, because those are there.
Survival as a concept is all about starting from scratch and surviving as far into the game as possible using whatever resources that are available in that world. It is supposed to get tougher to find resources as they get used up. That's the way it works in the real world (which is limited in size). To me, the XBox limited size world makes absolute sense for a survival game. Having an endless world and, therefore, essentially unlimited resources, defeats the idea of "survival" completely.
There are many other features that I would like to see the processing power, RAM and programming time used for first... like being able to individually select the biomes that comprise a new world (as was just being discussed in another thread).
I agree completely with this. It's not like the world will end if you have to start a new survival world. It will always be there, and i'm saying this because that's the only reason people want larger worlds.
So 4J comes out and says that the whole linking worlds idea just isn't possible and is never going to happen. People then continue to suggest it as a way to expand world size and say that they, people who do not work on the game and most likely have no professional game developing experience, know it will work.
Like my closet, they don't need more room- they just need to clean the junk out.
it doesnt take that long to build stuff in the game though, and for those that want slightly more realistic maps they also need some natural areas between builds or its odd.
it doesnt take that long to build stuff in the game though, and for those that want slightly more realistic maps they also need some natural areas between builds or its odd.
In the real world, when cities start to run out of space, they demolish the old buildings (sometimes recycling the materials) and build something more up-to-date and useful in their places. Sometimes, they even reclaim the previously developed land and return it to a more natural state. As Geneo said above, you really don't need more space, you just need to do some cleaning out of "stuff."
An idea, nothing else. And yes, I already used the search function to see if there was anything similar discussed.
My idea is that since we have finite worlds, that they could attach multiple worlds together, at the borders.
If that doesn't make sense, think of it this way.
Imagine a grid. the world you spawn in would be (0,0). go one world to the east would be (1,0), the the west (-1,0) and so on. each section would be treated like a seperate world, in a way. it would be generated like a new world, most likely with a random seed.
on each of the world edges, they could put a sort of gateway that allows travel between them. only the host could activate them (and moderators). maybe they would be able to be activated at any time, or could require a 1-time payment of some material, or require payment each transport.
that's my idea in a nutshell. any opinions, or additions?
this idea has been discussed several time before and once again it is very unlikley that it will ever happen
yes because everyone wants to build underground and in the nether, stop being daft
it doesnt take that long to build stuff in the game though, and for those that want slightly more realistic maps they also need some natural areas between builds or its odd.
1: On the PC, some people have built massive underground 'houses', reaching from bedrock to 'ground' level, spanning 100 square blocks, or more. . . The other day, one of our forum buddies (Baxanata, I think) had turned his Nether into an 'overworld', by placing dirt and trees etc.
So yeah, people do want to. . . it's called 'utilising space' . . .
2: Doesn't take that long? Play in survival, and dig/smelt your own blocks. Then it'll take years.
3: Slightly more realistic? Our maps are 862 x 862, give or take. You make a 'realistic' city, in survival, making it 'life size' . . .. Tell you what. . .you make a realistic, 'life sized' New York on your map . . ..That'll fill the whole map. . . hell, Central park would fill the whole map so yeah, you Can and would need to fill the entire map.
1: On the PC, some people have built massive underground 'houses', reaching from bedrock to 'ground' level, spanning 100 square blocks, or more. . . The other day, one of our forum buddies (Baxanata, I think) had turned his Nether into an 'overworld', by placing dirt and trees etc.
So yeah, people do want to. . . it's called 'utilising space' . . .
2: Doesn't take that long? Play in survival, and dig/smelt your own blocks. Then it'll take years.
3: Slightly more realistic? Our maps are 862 x 862, give or take. You make a 'realistic' city, in survival, making it 'life size' . . .. Tell you what. . .you make a realistic, 'life sized' New York on your map . . ..That'll fill the whole map. . . hell, Central park would fill the whole map so yeah, you Can and would need to fill the entire map.
I never said people didnt I said not everyone did,
I have plaid on survival thanks, i have a lot of constructions done on all the maps.
and What your going to GIVE a justification for bigger maps when you have been arguing we dont need them !!?!
1: On the PC, some people have built massive underground 'houses', reaching from bedrock to 'ground' level, spanning 100 square blocks, or more. . . The other day, one of our forum buddies (Baxanata, I think) had turned his Nether into an 'overworld', by placing dirt and trees etc.
So yeah, people do want to. . . it's called 'utilising space' . . .
2: Doesn't take that long? Play in survival, and dig/smelt your own blocks. Then it'll take years.
3: Slightly more realistic? Our maps are 862 x 862, give or take. You make a 'realistic' city, in survival, making it 'life size' . . .. Tell you what. . .you make a realistic, 'life sized' New York on your map . . ..That'll fill the whole map. . . hell, Central park would fill the whole map so yeah, you Can and would need to fill the entire map.
Still, it's not necessary that every single cumulated project a person ever works on should be accessible on one single map with the same inventory being portable across all worlds. The map saves you own (i.e. created using your gamertag) are generally stored on one system, so really it's just not that hard to close one world and open another and to even go back and forth periodically.
It's not even desireable that one inventory would have to be carried at all times... i.e. you might want to start from scratch in a new world from time to time, like when starting starting a new 404-like challenge or tackling a new survival island. So, making inventories separate from the world saves and or giving the player a "standard" startup inventory everytime they enter a world wouldn't work that well either. Imagine how well "hunger games" wouldn't work if the standard startup inventory for all players always included a diamond sword, diamond pickaxe, full diamond armour and a stack of cooked pork chops.
Linking files together is a can of worms. For one thing, the integrity between the links can get corrupted and disrupted in enumerable ways. I cited one above that might impact the game - simple exiting from one file, shutting down the console, and by forgetting where you were at the last time, entering the next time into a different file in the "link." Another, if a person takes a notion to delete one of their old maps and, therefore, creates a gaping big hole in the center of their linked maps. The portals of the adjacent maps suddenly go nowhere...
Hassles upon hassles... all so that a few land greedy builders don't have to manually open and close a file or a few "hoarders" don't have to part with a diamond pickaxe and work a little to acquire another in a new world. Meh.
I never said people didnt I said not everyone did,
I have plaid on survival thanks, i have a lot of constructions done on all the maps.
and What your going to GIVE a justification for bigger maps when you have been arguing we dont need them !!?!
I'm not giving justification. I'm saying, go and build a life sized New York, maybe including the subways, then come back and say you've used up all your map. . .. Or better still, go find ALL 16,000 plus diamonds, and prove it to us via the leaderboards to prove you didn't use creative.
An idea, nothing else. And yes, I already used the search function to see if there was anything similar discussed.
My idea is that since we have finite worlds, that they could attach multiple worlds together, at the borders.
If that doesn't make sense, think of it this way.
Imagine a grid. the world you spawn in would be (0,0). go one world to the east would be (1,0), the the west (-1,0) and so on. each section would be treated like a seperate world, in a way. it would be generated like a new world, most likely with a random seed.
on each of the world edges, they could put a sort of gateway that allows travel between them. only the host could activate them (and moderators). maybe they would be able to be activated at any time, or could require a 1-time payment of some material, or require payment each transport.
that's my idea in a nutshell. any opinions, or additions?
Maybe they could do something similar to your idea but like add a option to combine the other worlds you created together to make just one world since you have enough memory to hold the existing worlds you would have enough to combine all of them together so there would not be the memory problem that they have with making larger worlds.
you wont take all your items over doing this, thats why they need to be linked for it to work
Yeah, I know. I meant that bigger worlds aren't needed. Period.
Anyone that says they need a bigger world cause they've run out of space is taking out of their.....
As you said yourself "have you explored every inch of your current world and mine all resources ?? i didnt think so lol"
It's practically impossible. I just don't understand why anyone would need it. . . unless they get bored on their current seed, and don't want to spend time mining resources again on another seed.
While this idea has been discussed since June and it has already been confirmed to not work, I hope 4J Studios finds out some way. It is not that I think we do not have enough space in the Overworld, but I just fear that the End will end up looking extremely stupid.
I'm not giving justification. I'm saying, go and build a life sized New York, maybe including the subways, then come back and say you've used up all your map. . .. Or better still, go find ALL 16,000 plus diamonds, and prove it to us via the leaderboards to prove you didn't use creative.
Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me Up_Up. Lol
I don't think linked files or bigger maps are needed. It's not hard to save & Quit, then load another file.
you wont take all your items over doing this, thats why they need to be linked for it to work
... and what's the problem with not taking all you stuff with you. Your new world will have all the resources you require to build more tools (or will after this bug fix), you just have to work a little bit to find some of them. Asking to take your inventory over really just equates to wanting the "survival game" to be made easier. It could be more simply solved by starting everyone with a preset ample inventory of diamond tools and armor (but there are reasons why many of us wouldn't like that either). For those not concerned with survival, the solution is already there - go into creative mode and grab whatever you like. You do have the option of making it mimic an inventory you hold in another world.
Maybe they could do something similar to your idea but like add a option to combine the other worlds you created together to make just one world since you have enough memory to hold the existing worlds you would have enough to combine all of them together so there would not be the memory problem that they have with making larger worlds.
You're mixing HDD memory and RAM. It's RAM that's the big problem. Just because you store a bunch of files on the HDD does not necessarily mean your system has enough RAM to run them all as linked files.
While this idea has been discussed since June and it has already been confirmed to not work, I hope 4J Studios finds out some way. It is not that I think we do not have enough space in the Overworld, but I just fear that the End will end up looking extremely stupid.
What the END will look like on the XBox is a complete unknown at this point. Creating panic by speculating something is called "fear mongering" in some circles.
At 11:20 into the interview Burns explains why the "linked" worlds won't work (any ideas you can come up with involving linking worlds/maps). Before that he also confirmed that there's not like there's any "spare" memory they can use for expanding worlds, etc.- they're already "using all of it".
http://uk.gamespot.com/minecraft-xbox-360-edition/videos/meet-the-xbla-team-minecon-2012-6400548/
The two main things from the interview is:
1- The xbox version and PC version are, and always will be, different- on purpose.
2- 4J already knows about what we want. We might get some of that stuff…. or some of it might just not be possible on the xbox. They know, and they'll do what they can. On the other hand, we may get some cool goodies that hasn't even dawned on us yet (because we're so obsessed with trying to copy the PC version).
Someone show me your world where you have covered your entire map, or explored/excavated all 48 million plus blocks in your world, lit up the whole overworld and Nether.
I've not seen one xbox player yet, who has 'explored' thier entire map. So you find all the mineshafts/strongholds/Netherforts etc, but have you found all the caves, all 48million plus blocks, all 16,000 plus diamonds?
Bigger maps are not possible, and in all fairness, not needed on the 360.
Some people say, I want bigger maps! Have 4J thought of this?! Why wont they sort it! . . . . . but give me a genuine reason WHY you need a bigger map. . . then I'll apologise for snapping.
Well no but what about maps where the entire overworld has been built on already, because those are there.
So, someone on MCXBLA has built on their 'ENTIRE' world. . .including below ground, all mines/cave systems, and ALL of the Nether?
Who. . . so I can check out their huge Mega city on youtube.
I agree completely with this. It's not like the world will end if you have to start a new survival world. It will always be there, and i'm saying this because that's the only reason people want larger worlds.
The term "Quality, not quantity" comes to mind.
Like my closet, they don't need more room- they just need to clean the junk out.
yes because everyone wants to build underground and in the nether, stop being daft
it doesnt take that long to build stuff in the game though, and for those that want slightly more realistic maps they also need some natural areas between builds or its odd.
In the real world, when cities start to run out of space, they demolish the old buildings (sometimes recycling the materials) and build something more up-to-date and useful in their places. Sometimes, they even reclaim the previously developed land and return it to a more natural state. As Geneo said above, you really don't need more space, you just need to do some cleaning out of "stuff."
1: On the PC, some people have built massive underground 'houses', reaching from bedrock to 'ground' level, spanning 100 square blocks, or more. . . The other day, one of our forum buddies (Baxanata, I think) had turned his Nether into an 'overworld', by placing dirt and trees etc.
So yeah, people do want to. . . it's called 'utilising space' . . .
2: Doesn't take that long? Play in survival, and dig/smelt your own blocks. Then it'll take years.
3: Slightly more realistic? Our maps are 862 x 862, give or take. You make a 'realistic' city, in survival, making it 'life size' . . .. Tell you what. . .you make a realistic, 'life sized' New York on your map . . ..That'll fill the whole map. . . hell, Central park would fill the whole map so yeah, you Can and would need to fill the entire map.
I never said people didnt I said not everyone did,
I have plaid on survival thanks, i have a lot of constructions done on all the maps.
and What your going to GIVE a justification for bigger maps when you have been arguing we dont need them !!?!
Still, it's not necessary that every single cumulated project a person ever works on should be accessible on one single map with the same inventory being portable across all worlds. The map saves you own (i.e. created using your gamertag) are generally stored on one system, so really it's just not that hard to close one world and open another and to even go back and forth periodically.
It's not even desireable that one inventory would have to be carried at all times... i.e. you might want to start from scratch in a new world from time to time, like when starting starting a new 404-like challenge or tackling a new survival island. So, making inventories separate from the world saves and or giving the player a "standard" startup inventory everytime they enter a world wouldn't work that well either. Imagine how well "hunger games" wouldn't work if the standard startup inventory for all players always included a diamond sword, diamond pickaxe, full diamond armour and a stack of cooked pork chops.
Linking files together is a can of worms. For one thing, the integrity between the links can get corrupted and disrupted in enumerable ways. I cited one above that might impact the game - simple exiting from one file, shutting down the console, and by forgetting where you were at the last time, entering the next time into a different file in the "link." Another, if a person takes a notion to delete one of their old maps and, therefore, creates a gaping big hole in the center of their linked maps. The portals of the adjacent maps suddenly go nowhere...
Hassles upon hassles... all so that a few land greedy builders don't have to manually open and close a file or a few "hoarders" don't have to part with a diamond pickaxe and work a little to acquire another in a new world. Meh.
I'm not giving justification. I'm saying, go and build a life sized New York, maybe including the subways, then come back and say you've used up all your map. . .. Or better still, go find ALL 16,000 plus diamonds, and prove it to us via the leaderboards to prove you didn't use creative.
Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me Up_Up. Lol
I don't think linked files or bigger maps are needed. It's not hard to save & Quit, then load another file.
Yeah, I know. I meant that bigger worlds aren't needed. Period.
Anyone that says they need a bigger world cause they've run out of space is taking out of their.....
As you said yourself "have you explored every inch of your current world and mine all resources ?? i didnt think so lol"
It's practically impossible. I just don't understand why anyone would need it. . . unless they get bored on their current seed, and don't want to spend time mining resources again on another seed.
I am agreeing with you.
... and what's the problem with not taking all you stuff with you. Your new world will have all the resources you require to build more tools (or will after this bug fix), you just have to work a little bit to find some of them. Asking to take your inventory over really just equates to wanting the "survival game" to be made easier. It could be more simply solved by starting everyone with a preset ample inventory of diamond tools and armor (but there are reasons why many of us wouldn't like that either). For those not concerned with survival, the solution is already there - go into creative mode and grab whatever you like. You do have the option of making it mimic an inventory you hold in another world.
You're mixing HDD memory and RAM. It's RAM that's the big problem. Just because you store a bunch of files on the HDD does not necessarily mean your system has enough RAM to run them all as linked files.
What the END will look like on the XBox is a complete unknown at this point. Creating panic by speculating something is called "fear mongering" in some circles.